(December 21, 2015 at 2:04 pm)Esquilax Wrote:(December 21, 2015 at 2:01 pm)Delicate Wrote: One of the problems with atheists cherrypicking individual points that support their pre-established view is that they don't see the other half of the story.
Robert Flint's quote seems to address only one half: people who see no reason to believe that God exists.
The other half of the position is that these people see no reason to believe that God does not exist.
If they see no reason to believe the latter, what is the justification for atheism? Pure agnosticism, without any atheist pretensions, seems like the more justified view.
(Unless, of course, atheists desire to be atheists for non-rational reasons, and thus cling to the label atheism even if they have no justification for it).
So here's the bottom line: So-called "agnostic atheists" have to answer the question of whether they have any justification for believing that God does not exist.
If they answer yes, then they are atheists (not atheist-agnostics). If they answer no, they are agnostics (not atheist-agnostics).
Do you actually think that quibbling over labels constitutes some real victory over what we as atheists actually believe?
Not necessarily a victory. But I think it points out the self-deception atheists engage in.
And intellectually responsible atheists care about not engaging in self-deception.
